On July 14th, the Facebook page "Paoli, Indiana First Responders" put up a Facebook post titled "The Facts About Flock Safety Cameras." The post outlines what the city officials believe to be online misinformation and describes why Flock has a place in their neighborhood. It's an understandable attempt to protect city property; after all, who really wants their $3,000/yr cameras destroyed when you're liable for the repairs?
With Flock's numbers growing, I wanted to take this time to ensure everyone knows why this post is unreliable, what they got right, and what they got wrong.
What the Cameras Actually Do
The post starts by outlining what the cameras do and why they are important. It states the cameras collect vehicle information such as license plates, color, model, and other "distinguishing characteristics." This claim is true, all of that information is uploaded to Flock's cloud where potentially any law enforcement agency in the nation can see and search.
The post also states the cameras "are not designed to track individuals" and do not have facial recognition technology. This is also true, but that same sentence also states "they do not monitor law abiding citizens." In fact, Flock's system is always-on and always recording any citizens that pass by, even if they aren't suspects or connected to an active investigation. This type of constant surveillance has lead to numerous cases of law-abiding citizens being pulled over and arrested due to Flock's false-positives.
The AI-generated graphic then describes what everyone thinks LPRs are used for, which includes finding stolen cars and missing persons, as well as "[holding] criminals accountable." Flock's website claims their tech is used to solve 10% of all crimes in the nation, while the researchers consulted for that very study have much doubt about its legitimacy, stating they "would have done things much differently." 404 Media found that the law enforcement offices used in the study were cherry-picked while Flock prioritized data that showed "a big swing" in results from the usage of cameras.
The Difference from Private Security Systems
The post goes on to state that LPRs are "not that different" from the security cameras you see in stores, businesses, and homes. It states in public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, so it's okay for you to be recorded. The latter here is true; when you are outside, you can't reasonably expect to not be recorded. It's public property and people can do what they want.
However, most private security cameras and individual recording devices are stationary and localized; they stay in one spot and delete their data on a rolling basis. The property owner will be able to see when you enter or exit the property and, if they have multiple cameras, they can follow you around the store and see where you've gone. Most consumer and commercial security systems will also identify, at most, the difference between a person, a dog, or a package. Flock's system is capable of much more than a traditional security system.
Flock's ALPRs upload your information to their cloud which gives administrators the option to share it with any law enforcement agency in the nation. The cloud platform also materializes a heat map of your car's location and allows users to search for your vehicle with AI-powered queries such as "find the red car near the pool."
Traditional security devices record an area, they don't usually track or identify anything, and an individual can only be seen as long as they're on the property. ALPRs can track you across the city, state, or nation, connecting to its vendor's nationwide surveillance network, far surpassing what I would consider a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you knew someone were following you around the country, you'd likely be pretty concerned too.
It's true there's no expectation of privacy on public property, but at this scale it's akin to stalking. Individual recording devices are protected, but following someone around and recording them can get you arrested since there's a very real concern about an individual's safety in that scenario. Why is it different if the stalker is sitting at their desk in a police station (or even at home) instead of following you on foot?
To search a private security system, law enforcement needs to produce a warrant. With Flock's platform, cars can be tracked without you ever knowing, never passing through the judicial system and never generating a warrant. Your location is treated as public property, despite it being stored by a private company and controlled by law enforcement.
Furthermore, searching through the location history of technology like smartphones was ruled unconstitutional in Carpenter v. United States, so why is searching your location with Flock cameras any different?
Vandalizing the Cameras
The city's advisory also mentions, of course, the fact that vandalism is bad. Rebels around the country are locating Flock cameras at night and sawing them down before smashing them, spraying them with paint, or stealing them. I can't say that revolutions never start with a little violence, and without condoning or condemning the destruction of unconstitutional mass-surveillance devices, I must say that there are better ways to voice your concern.
We live in a democracy, and committing crimes to get what you want can hurt your individual credibility. The best arguments are constructed in legitimate ways by trustworthy people, and if you plan on speaking with your city's representatives it's useful to not have a criminal record.
If you want to look into legally deFlocking your community, take a look at DeFlock's Toolkit or our guide to learn more.
I understand governments like those in Paoli are just trying to keep their citizens safe, and it's a completely normal thing to be concerned about. But at this scale and with this technology it's time for them to understand that this is a real privacy concern that affects innocent individuals more than it helps capture criminals.